Leming, James S. (2000). Journal of Moral Education, v29 n4 p413-27. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ654665
Reviewed: September 2006
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Heartwood Ethics Curriculum/An Ethics Curriculum for Children.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Ethical Conduct |
Heartwood Ethics Curriculum/An Ethics Curriculum for Children vs. unknown |
posttest |
Grades 4-6;
|
64.48 |
63.20 |
No |
-- | |
|
Ethical Conduct |
Heartwood Ethics Curriculum/An Ethics Curriculum for Children vs. unknown |
posttest |
Grades 1-3;
|
67.93 |
69.09 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Ethical understanding |
Heartwood Ethics Curriculum/An Ethics Curriculum for Children vs. unknown |
posttest |
Grades 1-3;
|
23.35 |
22.75 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Ethnocentrism |
Heartwood Ethics Curriculum/An Ethics Curriculum for Children vs. unknown |
posttest |
Grades 1-3;
|
28.10 |
33.97 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Ethical Sensibility |
Heartwood Ethics Curriculum/An Ethics Curriculum for Children vs. unknown |
posttest |
Grades 4-6;
|
75.09 |
77.30 |
No |
-- | |
|
Ethical Sensibility |
Heartwood Ethics Curriculum/An Ethics Curriculum for Children vs. unknown |
posttest |
Grades 1-3;
|
51.84 |
52.18 |
No |
-- | |
|
Ethical understanding |
Heartwood Ethics Curriculum/An Ethics Curriculum for Children vs. unknown |
posttest |
Grades 4-6;
|
14.41 |
13.54 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
Two participating schools (one intervention, one comparison) were in a mid-sized, semirural school district in western Pennsylvania; the other two participating schools (one intervention, one comparison) were in a small, semirural school district in southern Illinois. The comparison students were drawn from matched schools in the same school districts as the intervention students.
The study included 965 students in grades 1–6 from four schools in two school districts. The student population in one school district was 95.6% Caucasian, with 25% receiving free or reduced-price lunch. The student population in the two participating schools in the other school district was 85.6% Caucasian, with 50% receiving free or reduced-price lunch.
The intervention group participated in An Ethics Curriculum for Children for the course of an academic school year. The literature-based program used folktales, folklore, and fairy tales to teach seven core values. Lessons included an opening discussion, story, discussion questions, reinforcement activity, and writing about the concept.
No information was provided on comparison students other than they did not receive Heartwood Ethics Curriculum for Children.
The study-specific measures addressed understanding of the curriculum’s seven core values (ethical understanding), preferences for exemplifying core values (ethical sensibility), behavior related to core values (ethical conduct), and affinity for ethnically diverse children (ethnocentrism). The measures were developed for this study to measure specific outcomes. (See Appendices A2.1 and A2.2.)
Teachers implementing An Ethics Curriculum for Children attended a half-day training course before the start of the school year.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Leming, J. S., & Silva, D. Y. (2001). A five year follow-up evaluation of the effects of the Heartwood Ethics Curriculum on the development of children’s character.
Leming, J., Henricks-Smith, A., & Antis, J. (1997). An evaluation of the Heartwood Institute's An Ethics Curriculum for Children: Final report. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. (Revised 4/1/2000).
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube